Time For a New Reformed Confession?

[Willem van Oranje]

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.

This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.

Rev. Stellman, I read the the blog and Chris makes good sense to me. I honestly believe you have set up some straw men in your blog. For example, the casting lots issue, the Roman Catholic marriage issue, and the issue of whether or not any ordained man actually believes the issues you raise are strawmen, in my opinion. The Standards are set. If someone doesn't adhere to them he should be honest and let the courts decide. If he doesn't like or approve them then maybe he should just cross the Tiber so to speak or where ever he decides to land. The oath and vow are something that is not taken seriously and is lacking in our society just as reverence for God's Holy name. Just because that is true should not make them any less more serious. I think you would agree with me when you look at the marriage problems you have to confront. The Standard is the Standard. Just because men don't like the Standard doesn't mean it should be changed because ordained men or laymen don't understand, know, or approve of them.

BTW, who in the world casts lots now days? That is just stupid. We have a more Sure Word spoken by and given by our Lord now days in the Canon. JMO. Let the Standards be the Standard and if someone doesn't like them let them go else where or pursue the purity and unity of the Church. What fellowship does light have with darkness?

Remember. 1 Corinthians 15:33 and be careful who you decide to play ball with. Why not just change the confessions to make them say what the Federal Vision wants. Many a better man than you or I spilled blood and studied much more than you or I ever will to pen the confessions. Are we better in understanding? I think not.

Just as an add on..... I do believe the Confessions address Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism, and Open Theism. What Confession are you reading?

I think there is probably a place for lots, if it is used reverently. I read a story about a town that cast lots to decide the result of an electoral tie over who would be mayor. I think this would have been a good use of the ordinace of lots. Sadly, it was done in a completely irreverent manner.

 

[Scott1]

Know what this is all about?

Church discipline.

We are seeing in our generation nothing new- doing church discipline is difficult. It does not, thankfully require perfection, only obedience and faith.

That's what's lacking in the main in this whole discussion-

OBEDIENCE AND FAITH

And no "problem" in Christ's Body can be solved without them.

Oh, Scott, I have no problem with what you say. Certainly if discipline of those outside the bounds were taken more seriously, then those bounds would be "easier" to spot.
The other piece is if a significant group wishes to change the Confession, then let them use their church's mechanism to do so.

My fear is what is happening, or will happen eventually if it isn't happening where you are, is that the Confession is being changed anyway *without* such procedure, or churches will just give lip service to their Confession.

It's always a valid concern in every generation that men will distort, violate, misrepresent biblical doctrine, including what they confess. That they will violate their vows. That they will fall prey to a creating a "cult of personality," etc. Nothing new about that (e.g. read I and II Corinthians).

Absolutely nothing has changed with man's sinfulness.

The thing is I do see people regularly screened out for matters of theology or morals, all the time with officers. And I see people grow by it. It seems to me that is much of the redemptive point of it all, at least in the Kingdom of God. The high profile cases of discipline, such as what the gentleman of the blog is dealing with, is the only solution. There is no other viable alternative. Re-writing a confession to either make vague or change to accommodate the point of view of some violators only adds confusion, and lessens the authority and meaning of confession. "Broadening the tent," at least in a confessional sense, only leads to shallowness and disunity and individualism (using that term as opposed to peace and purity type unity).

God is proving things out through it. Some high profile leaders under oath are being tested for the humility, subjection to the brethren, receiving of a doctrine in public ceremony.

What will it prove out in their lives?

Insolence? Humility? A love for the brethren? A love for self?

Our Lord only knows.

But this is the process He uses.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I haven't read the blog entry, nor do I have time (and I 'd make time if I thought this proposal had any legs) but from what has been said here, it sounds like the idea is to jettison the Puritan nature of the standards in any new ones. I can't imagine a more direct invitation for those remaining in the PCA who hold to the controverted doctrines to head toward the exit.

This comment makes very little sense. Perhaps if you did take the time to read the actual post in question you would be able to offer a more coherent response to it.

Rev. Stellman, I read the the blog and Chris makes good sense to me. I honestly believe you have set up some straw men in your blog. For example, the casting lots issue, the Roman Catholic marriage issue, and the issue of whether or not any ordained man actually believes the issues you raise are strawmen, in my opinion. The Standards are set. If someone doesn't adhere to them he should be honest and let the courts decide. If he doesn't like or approve them then maybe he should just cross the Tiber so to speak or where ever he decides to land. The oath and vow are something that is not taken seriously and is lacking in our society just as reverence for God's Holy name. Just because that is true should not make them any less more serious. I think you would agree with me when you look at the marriage problems you have to confront. The Standard is the Standard. Just because men don't like the Standard doesn't mean it should be changed because ordained men or laymen don't understand, know, or approve of them.

BTW, who in the world casts lots now days? That is just stupid. We have a more Sure Word spoken by and given by our Lord now days in the Canon. JMO. Let the Standards be the Standard and if someone doesn't like them let them go else where or pursue the purity and unity of the Church. What fellowship does light have with darkness?

Remember. 1 Corinthians 15:33 and be careful who you decide to play ball with. Why not just change the confessions to make them say what the Federal Vision wants. Many a better man than you or I spilled blood and studied much more than you or I ever will to pen the confessions. Are we better in understanding? I think not.

Just as an add on..... I do believe the Confessions address Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism, and Open Theism. What Confession are you reading?

I think there is probably a place for lots, if it is used reverently. I read a story about a town that cast lots to decide the result of an electoral tie over who would be mayor. I think this would have been a good use of the ordinace of lots. Sadly, it was done in a completely irreverent manner.

Wow, Is that all you got out of my post. Well, Okay. But that wasn't the point. I don't suggest it be done. Especially in light of ordination or whether we should receive certain standards or not. We have a more Sure Word. It is a completed Canon now.

You just totally slipped off the point in my estimation. But as I noted, "Well, Okay."

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

Brothers,

I apologize for letting so many comments go by unanswered. Yesterday was technically my day off, so….

Anyway, I’d like to try to address some of your concerns (and if I forget something, please feel free to point it out and I’ll address it).

My overall reason for bringing up Rayburn’s point about the lack of relevance our Standards have in the minds of many Reformed ministers is to facilitate discussion about this issue. Some people have refused to even hear the argument since it comes from a man who has gone on record defending Federal Visionists. I understand the irony here, believe me, and I pointed it out to him directly. But whether or not the FV is guilty of violating the Standards (and I think it clearly does), that is a separate issue. If it makes you feel better to picture Scott Clark’s face making the argument for a new confession, then do that, since he has been making the case for years.

My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with. As we examine candidates for ordination on the floor of our presbyteries, can we really doubt this? Maybe all of your candidates are stellar, but I have seen a serious lack of deep theological reflection on the part of many of our prospective ministers. Rayburn’s point is that this failure is at least partly explained by the fact that the confession to which they are expected to subscribe is a seventeenth-century document that reflects its time better than it does our own.

Concerning the relation of unity to truth, I don’t think that any of you who knows me thinks that I am advocating compromise on doctrinal matters. But at the same time, I think that Christ’s purposes would be better served if our various Reformed denominations found a way to exhibit more visible unity than we currently do. For my part, I think it’s silly that the OPC and PCA can’t become a single church. We don’t accomplish that by loosening our language on justification, but by being willing to compromise on certain less-important issues. I for one would welcome the attempt.

So all I’m saying is that it is worthwhile discussing whether a new confession is warranted, one that could perhaps help unite us, one that doesn’t contain myriads of statements that half our ministers are allowed to take exceptions to. If “in the space of six days” is not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine, then why not take it out completely? If movements like Dispensationalism or the New Perspective present new challenges to our churches, then why not address them confessionally?

If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing. If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having.

 

[Particular Baptist]

I actually agree with Rev. Stellman that there is no reason for the divisions between the Reformed denominations and that a new Confession is a good idea in order to foster unity amoungst the brethren. Far too much of the time, we feel as if we are letting down our past forebearers by re-stating what we as a church believe, but the truth of the matter is that the Westminster Confession is a man made document, just like every other confession. I agree with an overwhelming majority of what it says, but are these essentials over which we as Christians, even Reformed Christians, should be divided over? Perhaps Protestants have become too schismatic and don't realize that maintaining visible church unity is a VERY important matter.

The interesting thing is that I'm saying this as a credobaptist, one who would be left out of such a confession, though in my heart of hearts I so desire for all the brethren to dwell together and attend the same churches. What is the point of saying "We confess this...." when not all of the "we" do confess this?

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

Brothers,

Concerning the relation of unity to truth, I don’t think that any of you who knows me thinks that I am advocating compromise on doctrinal matters. But at the same time, I think that Christ’s purposes would be better served if our various Reformed denominations found a way to exhibit more visible unity than we currently do. For my part, I think it’s silly that the OPC and PCA can’t become a single church. We don’t accomplish that by loosening our language on justification, but by being willing to compromise on certain less-important issues. I for one would welcome the attempt.

So all I’m saying is that it is worthwhile discussing whether a new confession is warranted, one that could perhaps help unite us, one that doesn’t contain myriads of statements that half our ministers are allowed to take exceptions to. If “in the space of six days” is not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine, then why not take it out completely? If movements like Dispensationalism or the New Perspective present new challenges to our churches, then why not address them confessionally?

If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing. If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having.

I completely agree that if the members were to unite, it would be a God-glorifying thing. Would you go so far as to allow both credo and paedo believers to practice alongside?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Wow, Is that all you got out of my post. Well, Okay. But that wasn't the point. I don't suggest it be done. Especially in light of ordination or whether we should receive certain standards or not. We have a more Sure Word. It is a completed Canon now.

You just totally slipped off the point in my estimation. But as I noted, "Well, Okay."

That was my way of indicating that I agreed with most of the rest of what you said.

 

[louis_jp]

Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?

 

[Particular Baptist]

Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?

Not necessarily, there are some secondary issues that many Reformed denominations would disagree on. For instance, the RPW is one example where differences would be far ranging. A new confession which would address the essentials and address new concerns would be of great help. The Puritans addressed their concerns dealing with the papacy, and we have our own today.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.

Wasn't the Westminster a new confession when written? Why didn't they just use the Scots confession or the Belgic or the Genevan?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.

This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.

 

[Particular Baptist]

But the Belgic confession isn't sufficient, neither was the Heidelberg Catechism, or the Canons of Dordt? So the question is whether a confession is 'sufficient' enough. We must assume from this answer that the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Scots confession weren't sufficient.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?

Personally, I think it would be next to impossible to either get the Dutch to give up the 3FU for the WS, or the presbyterians to do the opposite. But if both were able to contribute to something new, it may be an easier compromise that each side would be willing to live with.

 

[Particular Baptist]

My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.

This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.

Should we continue the heritage of calling the pope the antichrist? I think that most on this board do not think that the pope is the antichrist or the man of lawlessness. Rev. Stellman is not saying that we abandon our heritage, but rather that we need to find what is essetial and unify around that.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.

A new or added confession would make distinctively clear those doctrines which are now only implied. It would be something that those errantists who are now claiming assent to the WCF could not get themselves to affirm. If we didn't need to keep adding new confessions every so often in response to heresy, we would have just stuck with the Apostles' Creed. After all, all the doctrines taught in the WCF are inherently implied in the Apostles' Creed.

I think the Westminster Standards are the greatest and clearest doctrinal formulations ever written. Yet we could now be more clear than they were on such topics as the imputation of Christ's active obedience, the gifts of tongues and prophecy, the evil of abortion, the need for capital punishment, etc.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.

This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.

Should we continue the heritage of calling the pope the antichrist? I think that most on this board do not think that the pope is the antichrist or the man of lawlessness. Rev. Stellman is not saying that we abandon our heritage, but rather that we need to find what is essetial and unify around that.

Yes, indeed. I applaud our brothers in Britain who are now organizing to protest the reappearance of Antichrist on British soil.

 

[louis_jp]

Excuse my ignorance, but how would a new confession foster unity between Reformed denominations? If they were unified enough to compose a new confession, wouldn't they be unified enough to agree to an existing one?

Not necessarily, there are some secondary issues that many Reformed denominations would disagree on. For instance, the RPW is one example where differences would be far ranging. A new confession which would address the essentials and address new concerns would be of great help. The Puritans addressed their concerns dealing with the papacy, and we have our own today.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.

Wasn't the Westminster a new confession when written? Why didn't they just use the Scots confession or the Belgic or the Genevan?

Well, they'd first have to agree on what's essential and what's not. If they disagree now, how does that disappear with a new confession? You might end up with more splits than you have now.

Beyond that, I'd say the state of the church today does not inspire a lot of confidence as to what a new confession would look like. Maybe the PCA should demonstrate a more emphatic willingness and ability to deal effectively with the FV before they start proposing new confessions.

 

[Particular Baptist]

New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.

A new or added confession would make distinctively clear those doctrines which are now only implied. It would be something that those errantists who are now claiming assent to the WCF could not get themselves to affirm. If we didn't need to keep adding new confessions every so often in response to heresy, we would have just stuck with the Apostles' Creed. After all, all the doctrines taught in the WCF are inherently implied in the Apostles' Creed.

I think the Westminster Standards are the greatest and clearest doctrinal formulations ever written. Yet we could now be more clear than they were on such topics as the imputation of Christ's active obedience, the gifts of tongues and prophecy, the evil of abortion, the need for capital punishment, etc.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.

This is the heart of the problem, but I propose that we are still in the process of rediscovering our heritage, including the Westminster Confession, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's not that we're not interested. We inherited the standards, as well as lax attitudes toward them in the PCUSA and the PCUS, and we've been gradually journeying back to them. To take away the disagreeable doctrines or points that seem peculiar to many Reformed ministers today would short circuit the reforming process which has been going on for the last 80 years in Reformed churches. How are we going to keep going down the road of discovering the richness of our standards if we trim off the parts that still seem hazy? We are only just rediscovering the heritage of our fathers, and we don't want to stop it now.

Should we continue the heritage of calling the pope the antichrist? I think that most on this board do not think that the pope is the antichrist or the man of lawlessness. Rev. Stellman is not saying that we abandon our heritage, but rather that we need to find what is essetial and unify around that.

Yes, indeed. I applaud our brothers in Britain who are now organizing to protest the reappearance of Antichrist on British soil.

Firstly, I think that we could all say that there are some who are in the invisible church who are still a part of the Roman Catholic system. Are these brothers and sisters cohorts with Antichrist?

Secondly, is Catholicism anymore the antichrist than Mormonism, Open Theology, Oneness Penecostals, Christadelphians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, agnostics, aethists, or even some Arminians? I think not.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I've got an idea.

How about we all subscribe to the WStds, the 3FU, and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, (which was able to deal with several topics in more detail due to false teachings which arose in the latter half of the 17th century, most of which have sprung up today in other forms.) We subscribe strictly, and enforce these vows using the courts of the church. Problem solved.

 

[Particular Baptist]

I've got an idea.

How about we all subscribe to the WStds, the 3FU, and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, (which was able to deal with several topics in more detail due to false teachings which arose in the latter half of the 17th century, most of which have sprung up today in other forms.) We subscribe strictly, and enforce these vows using the courts of the church. Problem solved.

Why is there so much hostility to this idea? I'm perceiving, perhaps incorrectly, that you're being sarcastic in this comment. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I see that so many on this board want to hold onto the past confessions because they feel that if they don't they won't be considered 'Puritan' or 'Reformed' in some sense.

 

[Scott1]

With the greatest respect for the integrity the esteemed pastor is showing in the church court case,
please see comment below:

Brothers,

I apologize for letting so many comments go by unanswered. Yesterday was technically my day off, so….

Anyway, I’d like to try to address some of your concerns (and if I forget something, please feel free to point it out and I’ll address it).

My overall reason for bringing up Rayburn’s point about the lack of relevance our Standards have in the minds of many Reformed ministers is to facilitate discussion about this issue. Some people have refused to even hear the argument since it comes from a man who has gone on record defending Federal Visionists. I understand the irony here, believe me, and I pointed it out to him directly. But whether or not the FV is guilty of violating the Standards (and I think it clearly does), that is a separate issue. If it makes you feel better to picture Scott Clark’s face making the argument for a new confession, then do that, since he has been making the case for years.

But doesn't this make the opposite point- that there will be no unity because of the doctrinal differences the men we imagine here stand for?

Your illustration implies men who represent two different viewpoints- not a unified one.

My point in bringing up the examples I did (most of which aren’t really mine, but Rayburn’s) is simply to say that there are plenty of details in the Westminster Standards that many of our ministers haven’t seriously engaged with.

If they are not engaging the details now, why would those who take such an attitude toward their office and vow suddenly change, e.g. to engage details, just because a new Confession is written?

As we examine candidates for ordination on the floor of our presbyteries, can we really doubt this? Maybe all of your candidates are stellar, but I have seen a serious lack of deep theological reflection on the part of many of our prospective ministers.

I've only seen a few, several have been very, very good. But how does a new Confession change this at all? A Confession itself doesn't improve one's own theological reflection, it would seem.

Rayburn’s point is that this failure is at least partly explained by the fact that the confession to which they are expected to subscribe is a seventeenth-century document that reflects its time better than it does our own.

What part of sin and redemption has changed? What specifically (pray tell) does this mean- can you be specific?
Is this being used to change the Apostle's Creed, which is much, much older?

Concerning the relation of unity to truth, I don’t think that any of you who knows me thinks that I am advocating compromise on doctrinal matters. But at the same time, I think that Christ’s purposes would be better served if our various Reformed denominations found a way to exhibit more visible unity than we currently do.

How is another Confession among Reformed Christians, one that will only compete with others on key doctrines going to do anything but divide another camp/denomination? And launch a round of a new faction of theological reflection?

For my part, I think it’s silly that the OPC and PCA can’t become a single church. We don’t accomplish that by loosening our language on justification, but by being willing to compromise on certain less-important issues.

Like what specifically?
There are historical, demographic, and other reasons (other than doctrine).
What if the two denominations work well together, have high level fraternal relations and an "open door" to uniting but still have some distinctives that make them wish to remain separate? Why would that be forced?

I for one would welcome the attempt.

So all I’m saying is that it is worthwhile discussing whether a new confession is warranted, one that could perhaps help unite us,

It's certainly not uniting anything here.

one that doesn’t contain myriads of statements that half our ministers are allowed to take exceptions to.

Are you advocating a minimalist new Confession (e.g. the Essentials of the Faith, like the EPC which does not include the "five points" at all, the doctrines of grace- is that what we compromise and somehow get "deeper theological reflection)?

If “in the space of six days” is not intrinsic to the Reformed system of doctrine, then why not take it out completely?

I'm not greatly familiar with the several views, but it would seem to me there might be legitimate disagreement about the length of "day" in the creation without damaging the integrity of the Confession. Not sure, but it seems removing the phrase doesn't help bring clarity or unity in that one bit.

If movements like Dispensationalism or the New Perspective present new challenges to our churches, then why not address them confessionally?

Isn't that what is happening in the court case you are involved in? (At least for the latter)

If the denominations represented by the members of this forum were to unite as a single church, I think that would be a God-glorifying thing.

Unite how? By avoiding all different doctrinal differences, sincerely held?

If a new confession could help facilitate that, then I think it’s a discussion worth having.

A new Confession that seeks to re-address "new" heresies (that are dressed-up old ones) or drop altogether other ones dearly held, would not seem to further this "unity" at all.

It's almost like saying, some people believe the speed limit should be 55mph, others 65mph, others 75mph- so we will just not post one because there is not 100% agreement, or worse yet, we pass a law that says... "we agree speed limits are important... and that each person should obey one of them. But the important thing is, we all like cars, therefore we are unified- because we all like cars."

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I've got an idea.

How about we all subscribe to the WStds, the 3FU, and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, (which was able to deal with several topics in more detail due to false teachings which arose in the latter half of the 17th century, most of which have sprung up today in other forms.) We subscribe strictly, and enforce these vows using the courts of the church. Problem solved.

Why is there so much hostility to this idea? I'm perceiving, perhaps incorrectly, that you're being sarcastic in this comment. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I see that so many on this board want to hold onto the past confessions because they feel that if they don't they won't be considered 'Puritan' or 'Reformed' in some sense.

I am not at all being sarcastic. I wish that we would all do this. Seriously.

And as far as creeds and confessions, it is my view that we can/ought morally never to slacken our doctrinal standards. We must hold to what we have attained. This will mean retaining historic confessions, or incorporating the whole substance of their doctrine into any new documents, (as for example the WStds incorporated phrases from the definition of Chalcedon and Nicene Creed.

 

[Marrow Man]

New Confession? We don't need no stinking new Confession.

Wasn't the Westminster a new confession when written? Why didn't they just use the Scots confession or the Belgic or the Genevan?

Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.

And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?

Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?

 

[Wayne]

Why is there so much hostility to this idea? I'm perceiving, perhaps incorrectly, that you're being sarcastic in this comment. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I see that so many on this board want to hold onto the past confessions because they feel that if they don't they won't be considered 'Puritan' or 'Reformed' in some sense.

Spencer:

"Why is there so much hostility to this idea?" Your question presumes that we should readily accept the idea of revision. I for one reject that presumption. Quite a number of posts in this thread display perfectly good reasons for rejecting revision. In my own mind, one of the greatest reasons is that revision would be entirely destructive of what little unity we now enjoy. I would also expect revision to result in a dilution of doctrine, not a building of doctrine.

Also, in your scratching around for a reason as to why we would reject the idea of revision, you come up with a perfectly wrong explanation. Moreover, it is an explanation that assumes the worst of us, that our reasoning would be small, petty and immature. Again, please take the time to read some of the substantive posts on this thread.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Completely different historical circumstances. There was a civil war going on. The Westminster assembly was actually called by Parliament to rewrite the 39 Articles, but early in the process there came the realization that a simply revision was not going to be sufficient. They later called for Scottish commissioners to help with writing the Confession. And the Scots liked it so much that they traded the Scots Confession for the WCF! Which is actually one of those historical ironies, because if the Scots had not, the WCF may have landed in the dustbin of history, since it did not become the confessional standard for the Church of England because of subsequent English historical developments after 1647.

And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?

Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?

Erastianism was rampant Ben. You know that. The work was done in a way that refuted it. The Standards were far more complete and theologically correct. In fact to answer the original question Tim was addressing, I do believe that all the resources were used in comparison. That is why it took so long to complete the Standards. It was more definitive and right.

BTW, I don't hold to the Standards because I want to look like a Puritan or Reformed. I hold to them because they are what the scriptures teach in my estimation. Even the Creation stuff is important to me. I think the creation account matters in how we view and approach the scriptures. While I am not a paedo baptist I still strongly hold to the Standards and I am honest about where I disagree.

Just as a note of reminder....
The 1689 LBCF is recognized as a Reformed Confession on this board.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

Think of it this way: What would happen if we took the text of the WCF and then omitted every single line, phrase, or word that we allow exceptions to, such as "in the space of six days" or the part about not thinking about your job on the Sabbath. Then once that has been done, we demand strict subscription. In other words, instead of trying to find a "system of doctrine" within the Confession, we say that the Confession IS the system of doctrine.

Wouldn't that minimalization have a unifying effect?

Sure, people would still have their views on, say, whether creation happened in six literal days or not, but since most of us agree that this issue isn't instrinsic to the system, the line can be purged in order to remove the need to make an issue out of it.

In other words, the more we say, the more potential division we create. Why not just say less, but say it louder?

Moving to the broader question of unity among our denominations, wouldn't it be a good thing to unite a handful of our churches around a new confession that said very clearly what needs to be said, and no more? For example, most of us don't actually enforce the WLC's rules on the Sabbath, and by our definition, those who go no further than the 3FU are potential Sabbath-breakers, at least if we take the WLC strictly. But since we allow exceptions to the WLC's Sabbath rules anyway, why not just remove them altogether so as to make it possible for those with a continental view to unite with us? No one is going to force you to think about baseball on the Sabbath, but no one's going to call you a transgressor if you do.

Or wouldn't sacrificing the demand for catechetical preaching on the part of the Dutch be worth it if it meant uniting with Presbyterians? No one's telling you you mustn't preach the Heidelberg on Sunday evening, but no one's telling you you must, either.

We sort of function this way already on some level, don't we? Why not draft a confession that reflects this? All our talk of confessional authority rings hollow when we allow myriads of exceptions to be taken to it.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Rev. Stellman,

Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for? Why should we desire to lose our identity for the sake of your conscience over mine? For one thing, the line is marked and is good. It will never be accepted by many. It will never be looked at as inclusive enough even if your desire comes to light. You will only have to move the boundary again later. I think you know that.

I think I will stick with what is good and biblical.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I find Charles Hodge's explanation helpful, that subscribing to the system of doctrine contained in the WCF means, in part, not having any scruples with chapters 1-20.

 

[jwright82]

I don't think we need a revised confession because we have ecclesastical mobility. By that I mean that if I am a Presbyterian and I come to the beleif that paedobaptism is not biblical than I can in principle go to a church that has a confesion that reflects my new beleifs. In a state church type situation where only one confesion was allowed and a significant number of members and leaders disagreed with it on some issue than the state church may or should adress the issue with the possibilty of revision. I agree with adding to but not really taking away from our confessions.

 

[Jason J. Stellman]

Rev. Stellman,

Don't we already have this? After all the Cambridge Declaration would suffice. Isn't this what NAPARC is for?

NAPARC is not a church.

I'm curious what those who resist this idea think about the issue of unity. Is the unity that we are supposed to have simply invisible? Jesus didn't think so, since he speaks of it as something that others are supposed to see. Is our unity merely a fraternal kind of thing, according to which we can be ecclesiastically separate but united by virtue of our all joining the same parachurch club?

No, according to the NT our unity is both visible and sacramentally-displayed. "As many of you who have been baptized into Christ Jesus are one in Christ; We are all members of one body because we all eat of one loaf and drink from one cup." But as long as Baptists insist on rebaptizing my children, or as long as URC'ers won't serve my wife Communion unless she can explain Calvin's doctrine of the mystical presence of Christ in the Supper, well, our talk of unity rings pretty hollow (at least to me).

 

[torstar]

And the "completely different" historical circumstances matter how?

Do you mean to imply that if the civil authorities ask/tell us to come up with something then fine, but the Body of Christ cannot take that initiative?

Historic circumstances matter all the time.

Do you think there would be a chance of getting the 50 US states to ratify a Constitution if they drew it up anew today?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What is your definition of Unity Rev.? Better yet, What is your definition of Union?

I have partook of the Lord's table in many different kinds of congregations. Both Paedo and Credo only. My Unity is with people who know Christ as Lord and Saviour. We have things in common. We have a common Head. We have a King. But we all don't look or act the same way. There are different body parts. They don't look or act the same and we should work together to bring those along into maturity. I believe the Confession is a mature document and is very Christ Centered.

BTW, I saw this Unity argument pull apart things before. It is a straw man also in my estimation. It rings the same sound of crying that we are not inclusive enough.

Here is an experience I had for the sake of Unity and LOVE.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/distinctives-biblical-doctrine-important-churches-3/